Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26

    Default

    I would give them all up in a heart beat, I think it would help out with a lot of units that experience point creep. In my mind, people would have a shot at those tier 1 units so more would likely apply, and allowing more of the lower tier units to be obtained at a higher percentage rate.

    I do like what Colorado does with the big three and I think that could be something to keep but modify. You must apply for 3 years before you are even eligible to pull a tag, so require everybody to apply for 3 years in a row before they can be considered an option for a tag for goat sheep or moose.

    But I know a lot of folks won't agree with my plan.

  2. #27

    Default

    I would be on board with the big 3 tags being once in a lifetime. Either nationwide or state by state. I think lost revenue could be made up with a modest nonrefundable application fee or license purchase.

    I am also 15 years into the point game and would walk away from them and all the money if random draws were implemented.

  3. #28

    Default

    It's interesting from an outside perspective to see how some people would be willing to forego their opportunity for personal gain in losing lots of points for the betterment of all while others like the idea but only after they've drawn their big tags. Each to their own but kudos to the former!

  4. #29

    Default

    As soon as I draw, I could give a rats ass about points. Till then, I'll keep my Montana points. Lord knows they give me a leg up on guys without them. Right? mtmuley

  5. #30

    Default

    Yes however only of it is to employ a more substantive long term model for funding and Hunter opportunity. We first need to understanding that we are all drawing from the same well regardless of residency. When we reach a point of negative returns it isn’t going to be an Epiphany that allows to mend our mistakes. It will be a hat in hand moments that will be taking the ball out of our court as the primary conservationists giving it to Joe Q. Public and New Jersey cat ladies.

  6. #31

    Default

    Everybody please. Do away with your points. In the goodness of your hearts.

  7. #32

    Default

    Status quo in CO is good for me. '16 I cashed in 23 deer pps. In 2000 I hunted 61 1st rifle w 7 or so elk pps. Now I draw what I can w 1 pp and clean up on reissues. I'm good, thanks.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Posts
    10,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COEngineer View Post
    Ben, the problem is that if we give non-hunters more "seats at the table," we might not like how they decide to manage wildlife. Look at how feral horses are out of control in NV, elk are being shot by paid sharp-shooters using night vision in Rocky Mountain National Park, etc.

    I want to like the idea of "animals first, hunters second," but I fear that if you take hunting away, there will be no user group vocal enough to preserve the wildlife. I believe that the United States has some of the best wildlife in the world and I know we have the most recreational (non-subsistence) hunters. I think the two are related.
    They already have a seat at the table, may as well make them pay for it.

    We aren't giving them something they don't already have.

    As to the point question, a lack of vision beyond, "I deserve a tag" is why we're here.

    IMO, at this point (pun there), there is no turning back. Youth and everyone but the top point holders are largely screwed in a lot of states for the hard to draw species. Animal populations on things like moose, sheep, and goat are declining and IMO/E, they aren't going to rebound. Too many outside forces, too much development, too many people...and the thing that is always going to have to give, is our wildlife. Welcome to 326,000,000 people.

    The next generation is not going to have the opportunities that I had/have for many species, cold hard reality.
    Last edited by BuzzH; 02-13-2018 at 08:03 PM.
    "...the world outside, which my brother and I soon discovered, was full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana." -Norman Maclean

    "They were still so young they hadn't learned to count the odds and to sense they might owe the universe a tragedy"
    -Norman Maclean

  9. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cody_Frankum View Post

    I do like what Colorado does with the big three and I think that could be something to keep but modify. You must apply for 3 years before you are even eligible to pull a tag, so require everybody to apply for 3 years in a row before they can be considered an option for a tag for goat sheep or moose.
    You beat me to it. I’ve always thought the 3 year ‘apprenticeship’ was a good program. It will be interesting to see what happens to this with the new overall model in CO, but it is a unique and seemingly effective model to reward loyalty but maintain hope. I’d like it even more if bonus points were squared (especially in 4 years when there are a wad of folks that start this year with the no-upfront-license fees). I don’t think it works for elk and deer as well, at least not in a lot of states/units.

    I’d prefer bonus points, but if the choice was ‘current point systems’ or ‘all random’, I’d pick random. It is nice to be able to plan out occasionally, as BrentD notes, I personally couldn’t deal with multiple tags 1000+ miles away from each other very often.
    2016 HuntTalk Baseball Pool Champion

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Alabama
    Posts
    100

    Default

    I wish all states would go to a bonus point system. 1 chance for each year that you apply. No squaring of points and no guarantees of drawing. It rewards those who have been in it the longest by modestly increasing their odds but someone new still has a chance to draw. Make all big 3 once in a lifetime and do away with outfitter sponsored draws altogether. Make all landowner tags good for ONLY the land that they own. That would increase the number of tags available in the draw (I'm looking at you New Mexico)!

    If only I were king for a day. LOL

  11. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alabama View Post
    I wish all states would go to a bonus point system. 1 chance for each year that you apply. No squaring of points and no guarantees of drawing. It rewards those who have been in it the longest by modestly increasing their odds but someone new still has a chance to draw. Make all big 3 once in a lifetime and do away with outfitter sponsored draws altogether. Make all landowner tags good for ONLY the land that they own. That would increase the number of tags available in the draw (I'm looking at you New Mexico)!

    If only I were king for a day. LOL
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That and make the entire license/permit fee due with the application when applying.

  12. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenhorn View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That and make the entire license/permit fee due with the application when applying.

    +1. very bummed Colorado just bailed on that.
    >>>---------------->
    Hostess Donettes pro staff

  13. #38

    Default

    And make all the landowner permits not allowed to be sold, only for the landowner and family.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,612

    Default

    New Mexico and no point system. Fair, but still hard to get your tag. But, fair. I think point systems discriminate against new hunters.

    Saw mentioned earlier in the thread to look at New Mexico as a way to eliminate a points system. I do not recall New Mexico every having a point system. Could be wrong. In the 60's?

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    St. Charles, Illinois
    Posts
    542

    Default

    I've got over 300 points total. The draw systems in many states are becoming houses of cards. I've been on an exiting strategy trying to burn anything over 20 before the cards collapse. And they most definitely will, eventually.

  16. Default

    i'm willing to give up all my points if there is a buy back plan.

  17. Default

    I would gladly give up all of my points in all states. The fairest way to allocate scarce public resources is a random draw. My biggest frustration with point systems is how for many states it was essentially a grant of the states best wildlife resources to the group of hunters who applied or got in on the base level. For example, Wyoming started their system in the mid 2000's I believe...for their top units - it was basically a grant of 75% of the very best tags to those first year applicants. What about that years applicants entitled them to 75% of the best tags for the next several decades?

    It is encouraging to see CO introduce this hybrid draw. I think that is the only way states wean themselves off these point schemes. Slowly start ratcheting down the proportion of tags that are allocated to preference and bonus point holders, while increasing the proportion of tags randomly allocated to all applicants. While a portion of us would support abolishment of point systems...it would never fly politically.

  18. #43

    Default

    Im beginning to think points don't mean anything in MT - reviewing the draw statistics for example:

    -14 bonus pts....10 resident applicants...only 2 drew the tag?
    -11 bonus pts....11 resident applicants...nobody drew the tag?

    I'm having a tough time understanding the weight that bonus points have and if they truly give you any better odds? Anybody with better knowledge or insight I would love to learn more

    Thanks in advance

  19. #44

    Default

    Sounds great and I can guarantee you will never see it. It's about money with these states and applicants are gonna be pretty pissed when they loose points that's cost them thousands over several years built up. I try now to only play those point games on what I consider OIL tags m/s/g unless it's say a tag that I think can be drawn within a few years.

  20. #45

    Default

    Do Wy and MT for instance start seperating out archery season and rifle seasons into multiple hunts say like AZ or NM?. To try and make people use up points faster and pick a weapon. MT maybe is a bad use for an example as it is a lot of general areas and not as many limited. But should a guy be forced to choose either archery or rifle? Just seeing what others think.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Western, CO
    Posts
    661

    Default

    Why not compromise... split the pool between purely random draw and a bonus point draw. Only catch is you have to pick your game, can't play in both.... Of course someone is going to complain about the split, but it could be adjusted accordingly to reflect the percentage applying for each draw...
    "Stupid is as stupid does..."

    http://fenderimages.com/

  22. #47

    Default

    You also have to consider those points bring money in for conservation. Many programs implemented by these agencies are funded through license sales, which includes preference point $$. That and you could possibly never draw a tag if it went to random draw. New Mexico is an example where you can apply your entire life and there is a chance you will never draw....
    To what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    In the middle
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sneakem View Post
    Why not compromise... split the pool between purely random draw and a bonus point draw. Only catch is you have to pick your game, can't play in both.... Of course someone is going to complain about the split, but it could be adjusted accordingly to reflect the percentage applying for each draw...

    This would greatly devalue points since there would be much less chance that they would help you draw. If fewer people bought points, then revenues would suffer. With so many state Fish and Game departments heavily or totally dependent on money from licenses, tags, and points, this may be tragic to their operation.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Western, CO
    Posts
    661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrentD View Post
    This would greatly devalue points since there would be much less chance that they would help you draw. If fewer people bought points, then revenues would suffer. With so many state Fish and Game departments heavily or totally dependent on money from licenses, tags, and points, this may be tragic to their operation.

    Don't think that it would decrease the value of points at all. Some people value knowing that they will draw such and such tag within "x" number of years. Some people are fine knowing they stand a chance of drawing any year, possibly never, possibly watching someone hunt an area 30 times and never drawing it themselves. Some states like Colorado don't charge crap for points so it likely wouldn't make a difference. Most states its a hunting license and small application fee not a bonus point fee. The one that really bends people over for points is Wyoming and its only non residents, if they instituted a hunting license or application fee for res and NR they could easily account for the shortfall. Only difference would be if you played random, you get no points.... If you played points you'd get no random.... one could switch at any time, the rules still apply, and you don't get a point when you are applying in the random pool, thus constant point pool applicants stand a better chance...
    "Stupid is as stupid does..."

    http://fenderimages.com/

  25. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rustneversleeps View Post
    Im beginning to think points don't mean anything in MT - reviewing the draw statistics for example:

    -14 bonus pts....10 resident applicants...only 2 drew the tag?
    -11 bonus pts....11 resident applicants...nobody drew the tag?

    I'm having a tough time understanding the weight that bonus points have and if they truly give you any better odds? Anybody with better knowledge or insight I would love to learn more

    Thanks in advance
    It's a bit hard to know what is going on in your specific example without knowing the species and unit, I couldn't find a unit for any species that had only 10 resident applicants of 11 resident applicants so I think you might be looking at just the applicants with that many bonus points instead of total applicants.

    The key with Montana is that points just put your name in the hat a number of times equal to your bonus points squared plus 1.

    Bonus points are just chances, remember its possible that if you had your name in a hat 999 times and your buddy had his in there 1 time, 1000 total, that if you were to pick out a single name it's possible that it would be your buddy with just 1 chance in a thousand.

    Max point holders are statically the most likely to draw, but given the number of applicants max point holders names make up only a small portion of the hat.

    Below is how you would calculate your odds for Moose given 11 bonus points, if only you had bonus points and no one else did.... but in reality for the example in question the number of names in the hat (number of applicants) was 37618 because almost everyone has bonus points. Therefore in that unit with 11 points your draw odds are more like 3%

    Name:  odds.jpg
Views: 61
Size:  110.2 KB
    Last edited by wllm1313; 02-28-2018 at 02:25 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •